Truth, like purpose, is a relationship - not an absolute. Even mathematics has axioms upon which all "truth" depends. Thus truth is a relationship between a statement and the axiomatic system from which all facts are derived.
Go back to mathematical logic 302 or whatever. You didn't get what you paid for.
Truth does not depend on an axiomatization. Axiomatizations ENCODE truths about "models".
Eh... that depends on which philosopher of mathematics you ask. Realism in mathematics leads to a quagmire. The laws of the excluded middle and universal quantification are too powerful for use on the real world.
Of course it measures "defensive contributions". A "defensive contribution" is one where a person takes the ball away from the opposing team. Guess what: that counts towards a "handling point".
Pilots are also a good final safety net though. I'm not saying that computers can't be trusted with flying a plane, obviously they can be and probably safer than a human pilot as well. But I find it unlikely that pilots will be out of the cockpit anytime soon, you just can't program a computer to handle every possible emergency. Would an autopilot have been able to control and land the Gimli Glider? Even assuming that designs were changed to ensure continuous power in that situation, I doubt the autopilot could have coped.
Emergencies are rare enough that a small pool of pilots can be kept on stand by, waiting to respond to emergencies via a remote cockpit.
One big flaw in their evidence is that (from what I understand) they argue that a song downloaded is a song that would otherwise have been purchased - which completely defies any basic principles of economics (price/demand curve).
That's not so clear to me. If somebody starts throwing out free songs, it doesn't change "where people are on the demand curve". It shifts the supply curve. To the left. A lot. So free music acts like a tax and incurs a deadweight loss that the supplier has to bear.
Yeah, just a 66% rise in costs... And of course, the cross-price elasticity of demand for socks is SO LOW that Americans will stop shopping at Wal*Mart, just to pay American wages.
You're in public, after all. It's not like you're being observed in your home. While I don't see how the SPOT program actually accomplishes anything, I really don't see how it's going to violate our freedoms. Law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to check you out as you stand in line to check your luggage. And it might just be that having trained observers in airports would force terrorists to work a little harder.
In fact, way back when Bruce Schneier began decrying the rise of Security Theater to "defend" against the terrorist threat, he proposed that the solution was training agents to recognize suspicious activity and behavior. He held that as the opposite of security theater, as it actually meant that there would be people on the ground ready to respond to and defuse terrorism before it could happen.
You don't understand. Lobbying is merely the expression of a group's desires to their representatives. If you outlaw lobbying, you either outlaw expressing your desires to your representatives on a collective basis or on an individual basis. Neither is good for democracy. We are free to assemble and organize in this country. Which freedom do you want to give up?
But Christ, there are over a million police officers in the US - calling them all corrupt assholes isn't going to get you anywhere, it's just going to make them want to kick your ass.
But only a corrupt asshole would kick your ass. A professional would just shrug it off and do his job. Do you see the difference?
Um, so you're saying that because it is invertible in a structure's multiplicative monoid, that it is not a prime? That doesn't follow. The reason we mathematicians decided to make 1 a special case among primes, and say it isn't one, is to make the expressing the prime number theorem easy, in terms of unique factorizations, instead of unique factorizations modulo factorizations including 1.
No, it's not a plotter. Plotters are able to move the substrate back and forth underneath the pen. Combined with the left and right motion, a plotter can make a line in any direction on the substrate. "Plotters are restricted to line art," as your wikipedia link says. This can't even do line art. It must rasterize ("pixelize") an image before it can be printed.
or that matter, how do you determine a fair price to pay for your investments? Do you bring up a spreadsheet, model the company's discounted future earnings, and derive the price you're willing to buy and sell at? Of course not
I use Haskell, but this is exactly what I do... if you're not doing this much, you have NO IDEA if the market price is fair or not. This is nicest to do on fairly volatile stock -- you can potentially meet your buy and sell prices faster than in a "stable" stock. Of course, trading on volatility adds volatility risk: if you ever really really need the money right now, you might have to sell for pennies on the dollar. So don't do this with money you will ever count on using at any given time.
Indeed, you can't just use the net present value of the investment. You need to discount for the risk of bankruptcy, of losing significant amounts of money on the investment, and the opportunity cost for investing in safer (the so-called "risk free") assets.
Stock prices rarely have any bearing on the "fundamentals" of a company. I've often seen companies report record profits, only to have their shares plummet. Or companies announce losses, and seen the shares spike. Company fundamentals are a very LONG term play (over a matter of months and years) but have absolutely no bearing on the instantaneous price. That is governed by market sentiment, positioning by large institutions, attempts at manipulation by certain wealthy traders (or their programs), volume and all the things that make up this minute's supply and demand.
Indeed. And it is your responsibility to buy on the first bid that meets your maximum price, and sell on the first bid at the price you seek, whether it happens a day after you buy and asset or a year. A chance to buy or sell at your target price may never come again.
The reason "stop loss" orders killed some people is because smarter people had buy orders in at a low target price. Presumably, the most they would pay for the company. Whatever the source of volatility, those orders filled because buyers and sellers had a meeting of the minds, and agreed on a price. The sellers don't have my sympathy. They lost an opportunity, and got paid exactly as much as they asked for for the privilege.
Next lesson: how to determine target prices based on interest rates and their economics.
Except the limit price is not hidden, and can't be hidden, as a matter of principle. You can just look at the order book to see the distribution of orders at different prices. The order book is the "instantaneous" supply and demand curve.
Investment is gambling. And it is insurance, for the same reason. Insure for what you don't want to lose, and you will not lose. Gamble when the odds are in your favor (which you figure out by understanding the underlying economics and statistical properties of a situation) and you will win, in the long run. This is what "Wall Street" understands, and it is how they make money by taking out long term positions and avoiding the business cycle.
Lets not forget that the investment system causes a multiplier effect on the amount of money flowing through the economy. That means more jobs. Without investment in your shitty little company, you probably wouldn't have been hired. So some money left the stock market, and jobs are being lost. Should millions more lose their jobs because of it? Of course not.
Slashdot Mirror
Truth, like purpose, is a relationship - not an absolute. Even mathematics has axioms upon which all "truth" depends. Thus truth is a relationship between a statement and the axiomatic system from which all facts are derived.
Go back to mathematical logic 302 or whatever. You didn't get what you paid for.
Truth does not depend on an axiomatization. Axiomatizations ENCODE truths about "models".
Eh... that depends on which philosopher of mathematics you ask. Realism in mathematics leads to a quagmire. The laws of the excluded middle and universal quantification are too powerful for use on the real world.
Of course it measures "defensive contributions". A "defensive contribution" is one where a person takes the ball away from the opposing team. Guess what: that counts towards a "handling point".
http://www.perian.org/
Pilots are also a good final safety net though. I'm not saying that computers can't be trusted with flying a plane, obviously they can be and probably safer than a human pilot as well. But I find it unlikely that pilots will be out of the cockpit anytime soon, you just can't program a computer to handle every possible emergency. Would an autopilot have been able to control and land the Gimli Glider? Even assuming that designs were changed to ensure continuous power in that situation, I doubt the autopilot could have coped.
Emergencies are rare enough that a small pool of pilots can be kept on stand by, waiting to respond to emergencies via a remote cockpit.
One big flaw in their evidence is that (from what I understand) they argue that a song downloaded is a song that would otherwise have been purchased - which completely defies any basic principles of economics (price/demand curve).
That's not so clear to me. If somebody starts throwing out free songs, it doesn't change "where people are on the demand curve". It shifts the supply curve. To the left. A lot. So free music acts like a tax and incurs a deadweight loss that the supplier has to bear.
Yeah, just a 66% rise in costs... And of course, the cross-price elasticity of demand for socks is SO LOW that Americans will stop shopping at Wal*Mart, just to pay American wages.
Specifically because their elasticity of demand is high.
http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns
You're in public, after all. It's not like you're being observed in your home. While I don't see how the SPOT program actually accomplishes anything, I really don't see how it's going to violate our freedoms. Law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to check you out as you stand in line to check your luggage. And it might just be that having trained observers in airports would force terrorists to work a little harder.
In fact, way back when Bruce Schneier began decrying the rise of Security Theater to "defend" against the terrorist threat, he proposed that the solution was training agents to recognize suspicious activity and behavior. He held that as the opposite of security theater, as it actually meant that there would be people on the ground ready to respond to and defuse terrorism before it could happen.
You don't understand. Lobbying is merely the expression of a group's desires to their representatives. If you outlaw lobbying, you either outlaw expressing your desires to your representatives on a collective basis or on an individual basis. Neither is good for democracy. We are free to assemble and organize in this country. Which freedom do you want to give up?
But Christ, there are over a million police officers in the US - calling them all corrupt assholes isn't going to get you anywhere, it's just going to make them want to kick your ass.
But only a corrupt asshole would kick your ass. A professional would just shrug it off and do his job. Do you see the difference?
It's only illegal to not carry I.D. in one US state. And that is a recent invention.
Um, so you're saying that because it is invertible in a structure's multiplicative monoid, that it is not a prime? That doesn't follow. The reason we mathematicians decided to make 1 a special case among primes, and say it isn't one, is to make the expressing the prime number theorem easy, in terms of unique factorizations, instead of unique factorizations modulo factorizations including 1.
No, it's not a plotter. Plotters are able to move the substrate back and forth underneath the pen. Combined with the left and right motion, a plotter can make a line in any direction on the substrate. "Plotters are restricted to line art," as your wikipedia link says. This can't even do line art. It must rasterize ("pixelize") an image before it can be printed.
Yeah, but R-12 isn't recollected at dump time. Refrigerators are not easily recyclable. So they are just crushed, release CFCs.
1 is prime. Can you find any divisors of 1 but 1 and itself? No. Therefore, 1 is prime.
Sounds like Rome and the modern Western state.
or that matter, how do you determine a fair price to pay for your investments? Do you bring up a spreadsheet, model the company's discounted future earnings, and derive the price you're willing to buy and sell at? Of course not
I use Haskell, but this is exactly what I do... if you're not doing this much, you have NO IDEA if the market price is fair or not. This is nicest to do on fairly volatile stock -- you can potentially meet your buy and sell prices faster than in a "stable" stock. Of course, trading on volatility adds volatility risk: if you ever really really need the money right now, you might have to sell for pennies on the dollar. So don't do this with money you will ever count on using at any given time.
Indeed, you can't just use the net present value of the investment. You need to discount for the risk of bankruptcy, of losing significant amounts of money on the investment, and the opportunity cost for investing in safer (the so-called "risk free") assets.
He's not. He's saying it's an extra cost to consider.
Dude, Chibi Ace is almost as cute as Chibi Luffy. c|:0D
I'd rather we blow it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csj7vMKy4EI
Stock prices rarely have any bearing on the "fundamentals" of a company. I've often seen companies report record profits, only to have their shares plummet. Or companies announce losses, and seen the shares spike. Company fundamentals are a very LONG term play (over a matter of months and years) but have absolutely no bearing on the instantaneous price. That is governed by market sentiment, positioning by large institutions, attempts at manipulation by certain wealthy traders (or their programs), volume and all the things that make up this minute's supply and demand.
Indeed. And it is your responsibility to buy on the first bid that meets your maximum price, and sell on the first bid at the price you seek, whether it happens a day after you buy and asset or a year. A chance to buy or sell at your target price may never come again.
The reason "stop loss" orders killed some people is because smarter people had buy orders in at a low target price. Presumably, the most they would pay for the company. Whatever the source of volatility, those orders filled because buyers and sellers had a meeting of the minds, and agreed on a price. The sellers don't have my sympathy. They lost an opportunity, and got paid exactly as much as they asked for for the privilege.
Next lesson: how to determine target prices based on interest rates and their economics.
Except the limit price is not hidden, and can't be hidden, as a matter of principle. You can just look at the order book to see the distribution of orders at different prices. The order book is the "instantaneous" supply and demand curve.
Investment is gambling. And it is insurance, for the same reason. Insure for what you don't want to lose, and you will not lose. Gamble when the odds are in your favor (which you figure out by understanding the underlying economics and statistical properties of a situation) and you will win, in the long run. This is what "Wall Street" understands, and it is how they make money by taking out long term positions and avoiding the business cycle.
Lets not forget that the investment system causes a multiplier effect on the amount of money flowing through the economy. That means more jobs. Without investment in your shitty little company, you probably wouldn't have been hired. So some money left the stock market, and jobs are being lost. Should millions more lose their jobs because of it? Of course not.